Re: debian

[cr <cr@orcon.net.nz>]

On Monday 23 June 2003 08:35, John Sunderhaus wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-06-21 at 15:30, cr wrote:
> > On Sunday 22 June 2003 01:39, Paul Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 01:07:21AM +1200, cr wrote:
> > > > > And, just so I can join in the foray of the auto-detect flame-fest
> > > > > here, if a user doesn't know his hardware well enough to be able to
> > > > > pick it from a list he shouldn't be installing an OS in the first
> > > > > place.
> > > >
> > > > Errr, *wrong*.  Much of my gear is second-hand, and of course the
> > > > first thing the original owners invariably do is lose the manuals.
> > > >
> > > > :( My current motherboard is the first one I've ever had a manual
> > > >
> > > > for, ditto my S3 VGA card, and I've *never* owned any monitor of a
> > > > brand that's been listed in the 'X' config options.
> > >
> > > Actually, he's right.  It's 2003 and people still don't know about
> > > Google?
> >
> > You think I didn't *try* that?    ;)
> > Short of taking the monitor apart and looking for some name on the
> > chassis inside, I could find nothing.
> > And that does presuppose one has a spare working PC with an Internet
> > connection handy.
> >
> > > > Yet, both RedHat and Mandrake's graphical installers and Debian's
> > > > penguin logo display fine with *whatever* card I'm running - what is
> > > > it the installers know that they won't tell X config ?    :(
> > >
> > > X is not the framebuffer.
> >
> > I don't know the technicalities, it still seems odd to me that the
> > installers can display a graphical image perfectly while they're
> > installing, yet when they reach the point of setting up X, she don't
> > work.    Not to mention, frustrating.
> >
> > cr
>
> My two cents...
>
> First, cr, you hit the nail on the head re: your observations on RedHat
> and beancounters.  I could not have stated it better.

Unfortunately, that usually favours Micro$oft.

> However, trying to get any Linux distro to perform better than Windoze
> on inadequate equipment is like trying to pull an 18 wheeler with a VW.
> There is no magic in the world that can be applied to that VW to pull an
> eighteen wheeler.

I once tow-started a Jaguar Mk 2 with my Lotus Elan - does that count?   OK, 
I know, OT   ;)

I do agree, that all OS's perform better with heaps of processor 
speed/memory.   

> First, I am very happy to inform the world (outside of Debian world)
> that Debian Linux *is ready* for the desktop. The caveat is this:  While
> Windoze seems to work OK on PCs with 32Mb to 64Mb of RAM, there is *no
> way* Linux can compete on that equipment.  In order to graphically see
> that Linux *looks better* and *performs better* than Windoze, you *must*
> have the following:
>
> 	Tons of memory - I'd say at the very minimum, 256MB.
> 	A graphics card that can do a color depth of 24bpp or better
> 	A monitor (CRT) that can do 30-95 HZ horizontally and 50-160 HZ
> vertically.
>
> As far as I am concerned, if your equipment can't do the above, then
> getting a Linux desktop running X to outperform Windoze is an impossible
> mission - and a waste of time.  You are better off running Windoze.

Well, there I'd disagree, when I first started running Linux (RH5.2) it was 
on a 75MHz  AMD K5 with, IIRC, 48Meg of RAM.   And it worked fine so long as 
I didn't try to load too many apps at once.

But, in case I gave the wrong impression, I currently have a K6/2  350,  
384MB RAM,  and (if I'm running RH) 4MB on my S3V graphics card.   Since I'm 
running Debian, I'm using the on-board SIS630 which, I suspect, borrows as 
much RAM as it wants but I'm *not* an expert on that!

Anyway, I'd say my machine was adequate.

> However, on equipment that meets the above criteria, I am quite pleased
> to see that in very many ways, Linux, qualitatively speaking,
> outperforms Windoze.  Not only does my desktop implementation *look MUCH
> better*, I have many, many more choices than Windoze.  Not only do I
> have more choices - those different choices don't cost me a dime.  Down
> the road, I don't see how MS is going to compete.

Now *that's* why I like Linux.   I love having lots of stuff to choose from.  
Though it is *possible* in Windoze, for example there seem to be third-party 
apps for most functions, much though M$ would like everyone to use theirs.    
Not always free, though.

> I just don't see how its physically possible to install Linux on a
> machine with less than 256MB and a nameless monitor and find happiness -
> unless you like working at the command prompt.
>
> And thats my two cents...
>
> jsunderhaus

Respectfully, I disagree.    There's often a problem of setting XF86config 
for a monitor which there is no info for, but once that's solved, it works 
fine.

cr